Stats
Actions
Tags
From medsci-project
Scans academic manuscripts for 24 AI writing patterns and rewrites flagged passages to sound naturally human-written while preserving technical accuracy.
How this skill is triggered — by the user, by Claude, or both
Slash command
/medsci-project:humanizeinheritThe summary Claude sees in its skill listing — used to decide when to auto-load this skill
You are assisting a medical researcher in detecting and removing AI writing patterns from
You are assisting a medical researcher in detecting and removing AI writing patterns from academic manuscripts. Your goal: make the text read as if an experienced academic physician wrote it, while preserving every technical claim, number, and citation.
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/ai_patterns.md -- full 24-pattern list with expanded examples for medical/radiology manuscripts (Pattern 19–21 are senior-MA-reviewer red flags; Pattern 22–24 are response-to-reviewers letter patterns)Always read the pattern reference file at the start of a humanize session.
Read the manuscript section(s) provided by the user and scan for all 24 patterns. For response-to-reviewers letters and cover letters, prioritise patterns 22-24.
For each pattern found:
Output: Pattern Frequency Table
## AI Pattern Scan Report
Section: {section name}
Word count: {N}
| # | Pattern | Count | Severity | Example from text |
|---|---------|-------|----------|-------------------|
| 1 | Significance inflation | 3 | HIGH | "...pivotal role in diagnostic imaging..." |
| 7 | AI vocabulary words | 5 | HIGH | "Additionally,...", "crucial finding..." |
| 8 | Copula avoidance | 2 | MEDIUM | "...serves as the gold standard..." |
| ... | ... | ... | ... | ... |
Patterns not detected: 2, 4, 9, 14, 15
Total AI pattern instances: {N}
AI pattern density: {N per 1000 words}
Present findings to the user with actionable summary.
Severity levels:
AI Pattern Score:
Gate: Present the report and ask the user which patterns to fix. Default: fix all HIGH and MEDIUM.
Rewrite flagged passages following these rules:
Fix strategies per pattern category:
| Category | Strategy |
|---|---|
| Content patterns (1-6) | Delete vague claims; replace with specific data or citations |
| Language patterns (7-12) | Substitute with plain academic English; simplify verb constructions |
| Style patterns (13-15) | Adjust formatting and punctuation |
| Filler and hedging (16-18) | Delete filler; calibrate hedging to match evidence level |
Output: Present the rewritten text with changes highlighted using diff format or tracked changes.
Re-scan the rewritten text using the same 24 patterns.
Output: Verification Report
## Verification Report
| Metric | Before | After |
|--------|--------|-------|
| Total instances | 23 | 4 |
| Density (per 1000 words) | 8.2 | 1.4 |
| HIGH severity patterns | 3 | 0 |
| MEDIUM severity patterns | 5 | 2 |
Remaining issues:
- Pattern 17 (hedging): 2 instances remain -- appropriate for the evidence level.
Verdict: PASS (density < 2.0)
If the density remains above 2.0, run another fix-verify cycle (max 3 rounds).
| # | Pattern | What to look for | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Significance inflation | "pivotal," "evolving landscape," "underscores the critical importance" | Delete or state the specific importance with data |
| 2 | Notability claims | "landmark trial," "renowned investigators," "groundbreaking" | Remove; let the data speak |
| 3 | Superficial -ing analyses | "highlighting the cardioprotective effects," "underscoring the broad applicability" | End the sentence at the data; start a new sentence for interpretation |
| 4 | Promotional language | "remarkable findings," "dramatic reductions," "profound impact" | State the actual numbers neutrally |
| 5 | Vague attributions | "Studies have shown," "Experts argue," "Several publications" | Cite the specific study |
| 6 | Formulaic challenges sections | "Despite challenges... future outlook... continues to provide" | State specific limitations factually |
| # | Pattern | What to look for | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 7 | AI vocabulary words | Additionally, crucial, delve, enhance, fostering, pivotal, showcase, tapestry, underscore, landscape (abstract) | Delete or replace with plain English |
| 8 | Copula avoidance | "serves as," "stands as," "represents a" | Use "is" |
| 9 | Negative parallelisms | "not only X but also Y" | "X and Y" |
| 10 | Rule of three overuse | Forcing ideas into groups of three repeatedly | Use natural grouping (2, 4, 5 items) |
| 11 | Synonym cycling | patients/participants/subjects/individuals | Pick one term, use consistently |
| 12 | False ranges | "from improved renal function to enhanced cardiac outcomes" | List the specific outcomes directly |
| # | Pattern | What to look for | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | Em dash overuse | More than 2 em dashes per page | Use parentheses or restructure |
| 14 | Title case in headings | "Statistical Analysis And Primary Endpoints" | Sentence case per journal style |
| 15 | Curly quotation marks | Curly quotes from ChatGPT | Straight quotes |
| # | Pattern | What to look for | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 16 | Filler phrases | "It is important to note that," "In order to," "Due to the fact that" | Delete the filler; state the content directly |
| 17 | Excessive hedging | "may potentially suggest the possibility" | Choose the appropriate certainty level: "suggests" |
| 18 | Generic positive conclusions | "The future looks bright," "continues to reshape," "paves the way" | State the specific next step or implication |
| # | Pattern | What to look for | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 19 | § (section sign) marker | "as in §2.3", "(see §Discussion)", "§Results" | Delete or replace with section name ("Methods", "Results") — grep -c "§" = 0 |
| 20 | Methods/Results self-reference parenthetical | "(Methods §X)", "(Results §3.1)", "(Methods, Section 2.3)" | Drop the parenthetical or shorten to "(see Methods)" |
| 21 | AI Disclosure boilerplate (body) | "## Artificial Intelligence Disclosure", "Generative AI was not used to create..." in manuscript body | Remove from body → place in cover letter / submission form only (per ~/.claude/rules/journal-ai-image-policies.md) |
Patterns 22-24 apply only when scanning a response-to-reviewers letter or editor cover letter,
not manuscript bodies. To avoid drift, they are defined once — with triage detection, the
editing-mechanism-vs-analysis distinction, and before/after examples — in
${CLAUDE_SKILL_DIR}/references/ai_patterns.md (Response-Letter Patterns section). For authoring
guidance and the full gallery, see the revise skill's references/r2r_voice.md.
When scanning a full manuscript, prioritize these patterns per section:
| Section | Priority Patterns | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Abstract | ALL (1-21) | Most visible section; most scrutinized for AI patterns |
| Introduction | 1, 2, 5, 7, 12 | AI inflates background importance and uses vague attributions |
| Methods | 8, 16 | Methods should be straightforward; copula avoidance and filler are common |
| Results | 3, 4, 6, 10, 11 | AI adds interpretive -ing clauses and promotional language to results |
| Discussion | 1, 5, 6, 17, 18 | AI produces formulaic discussions with excessive hedging |
| Conclusion | 1, 18 | AI generates generic positive conclusions |
| Methods (MA / SR) | 19, 20, 21 | § markers, self-reference parentheticals, AI Disclosure boilerplate are senior-MA-reviewer red flags |
| Discussion (MA / SR) | 19, 20 | Self-reference parentheticals especially common when discussing methods |
| Body (any) | 21 | AI Disclosure belongs in cover letter / submission form, not manuscript body |
| Response to Reviewers / cover letter | 22, 23, 24 (+ 13, 16, 19) | Editing-mechanism narration, internal draft line numbers, and tooling leaks are the dominant tells in machine-drafted rebuttals (see ai_patterns.md R2R section) |
| Calling skill | When this skill is invoked |
|---|---|
/write-paper | Phase 7 (Polish) -- automatic scan before submission |
/peer-review | When reviewing one's own manuscript for AI patterns |
/revise | When drafting response-to-reviewers letters and cover letters -- patterns 22-24 are the enforced gate before submission |
When called by another skill, return the verification report so the calling skill can check the pass/fail status.
| Gate | Severity | Trigger | Action on fail |
|---|---|---|---|
| AI-pattern density target | ADVISORY | density > 2.0 patterns / 1000 words after sweep | warn; surface remaining flagged passages for manual review |
Pattern 19 — § symbol | ENFORCED (senior MA reviewer prep) | grep -c "§" manuscript.md > 0 | auto-strip; verify post-rewrite count == 0 |
Pattern 20 — (see Methods §X) self-reference | ENFORCED | match found | rewrite to direct section name reference |
| Pattern 21 — AI Disclosure paragraph in body | ENFORCED | "Generative AI was not used..." paragraph in manuscript body | move to cover letter or remove |
| Patterns 22-24 — R2R editing-mechanism / draft line-number / tooling leak | TRIAGE (response letters); § = 0 hard | detection greps in ai_patterns.md R2R section surface candidates | review each hit (analysis narration, quoted additions, revised-manuscript page/line are NOT tells); rewrite confirmed tells to substantive prose |
| Citation preservation invariant | ENFORCED | any pre-existing [@bibkey] removed by rewrite | revert that single rewrite; flag for user |
| Numerical preservation invariant | ENFORCED | any number changed by rewrite | revert; flag for user |
npx claudepluginhub aperivue/medsci-skills --plugin medsci-projectDetects AI-generated patterns in English academic LaTeX text via risk-tagged scans of vocabulary, sentences, and transitions, then batch rewrites for natural style. For CS research papers.
Audits and rewrites prose to remove 21 AI writing patterns across formatting, structure, and phrasing using a 43-entry replacement table. Use for docs, blogs, or marketing copy.
Detects and removes AI-generated writing patterns from text while preserving meaning. Catalogues 24 patterns from Wikipedia's WikiProject AI Cleanup.